36 Comments

Although I am not a scientist nor do I claim any particular expertise in any hard science field, for 25 years I have kept with me a copy of a book that I’m sure you must have read. It is probably the best book on the whole climate change issue existing….despite not saying a word about the issue in it. It is Richard P. Feynman’s “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman.” Although the entire book is delightful and edifying, the last chapter “Cargo Cult Science” is the most on point. I would also recommend Feynman’s report of his participation in the Challenger shuttle investigation, published in “What Do You Care What Other People Think” after his death in 1988. This last is particularly pertinent in re the BP oil spill.

Absolutely agree, wcopp, those are both excellent reads. I would also recommend Taleb’s “The Black Swan” to all readers here – I’ve just finished reading it and it contains a lot of thought-provoking material about the nature of randomness (he categorises deterministic but unknowable processes as ‘random’) in the real world, and the implications of same for our ability to predict the future, and to quantify risk.

The examples in the book are largely about the world of high finance. Writen around 2006, it’s quite chilling to realise how well-known the fragility of the global economic system was at that time, given later events.

He doesn’t address climate science at all but many passages are directly applicable to the field.

I think you meant to say, “Isn’t that what inquiries …” [Or perhaps, “Isn’t that what a proper inquiry would do?”]

That aside, the “IPCC stuff” Oxburgh didn’t have “to hand” is perhaps the flip-side to the irrelevant “papers” which they obviously did have “to hand” and about which the report (using the term somewhat loosely) made much ado.

I am beginning to wonder, in all seriousness, if none of the Oxburgh panel members knew that Jones and Briffa were IPCC and WMO lead authors. In the report itself they exonerate CRU but blame groups like the IPCC for “regrettably” failing to discuss all the uncertainties. It all gets very bizarre unless you imagine that some or most of the panelists didn’t realize that on the relevant topics, IPCC&WMO = Jones&Briffa; and those that did kept mum.

When you put on a different hat, you become a different person, so it doesn’t count. Seriously, either they didn’t know Jones & Briffa et al were lead IPCC authors, or they have very good compartmentalized thinking.

When you conduct a ‘whitewash inquiry’ you have no problem compartmentalising things. CRU was the object of the inquiry so they just took CRU ‘literally’ as their remit despite what they might otherwise have known.

Steve: The Parliamentary Committee said that they expected the Science Appraisal Panel to consider the trick (which involved CRU scientists at IPCC). To the extent that they expected panels to consider their opinions, they were disappointed. To the extent that they were led to believe that Oxburgh would consider CRU conduct at IPCC, they were tricked.

CRU was the object, and quality of science was the subject. Easy then – by obfuscation – to avoid focused scrutiny on the performance of one guy who did one thing – Phil Jones “completing Mike’s Nature trick”.

Seems to me that the brittle circled wagons strategy will not be able to survive the revelations about Oxburgh’s ‘structuring’ of the inquiry, and Kelly’s real view of the hand (if not Royal Society) picked papers.

Perhaps there will have to be a move toward tactical reassignments or resignations and an adoption of a new ‘it was just a one-off, few bad-apples’ tactic. (As George Monbiot originally suggested).

It will be interesting to see what happens in the Muir Russell inquiry. I imagine that the practice sessions for the press conference, and Roger Harrabin’s briefings have already begun.

I’ve yet to see anyone summarise “how and why this happened” better than Steven Schneider (Promoter of the recent PNAS “black list” paper):

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

I was asking for a somewhat more technical answer – why the error bars are being omitted. Well, they’re probably omitted because they would show, even with the flawed data, that the past climate is pretty much unknown.

This undermines the authority of the champions of the climate panic – who know everything. On the other hand, such an uncertainty is also good because these folks also know how to present any uncertainty as an argument for even more hysterical reactions. ;-)

So I would like to hear what’s really important according to Oxburgh and why the omission of the error bars happened in his opinion. I know that none of you ise actually Lord Oxbugger but many of you must know him more than I do. :-)

There is no “ethical bind” for someone who is honest. What’s the problem with telling all the facts, caveats, uncertainties, etc. and then saying what you do and don’t know has you scared? Of course you have to say that you tend toward worry/pessimism to put your emotions in context, but that’s just being honest. Now you can be both a scientist and a human being. Otherwise you’re just a marketer.

Interestingly, the key is that a scientist is supposed to be neutral, and have distance (not emotionally involved) with the subject of study. Ideally, it should not matter to him what the result is.

This is a basic requirements for making good science. And we see that the ideal is already unreachable: all scientist must publish and need positive results for that, so they are not fully neutral.

But wait… who can be neutral and keep distance at the tought of catastrophe for your specie? Man, the fate of our planet is at stake! As soon as those scientists got persuaded that they needed to save the planet, they could by definition not remain neutral scientists. Perhaps by surhuman effort they may have kept an appearance of objectivity, at best.

The whole thing looks increasingly like a sham. The question is, what happens now?

There’s no prospect of the inquiry being re-run, but now we know it was flawed, and the worries of at least one of the members of the inquiry panel were ignored, or not considered sufficiently important to warrant mention.

Will this just continue to rattle round the blog-o-sphere, or does it have legs? Here in the UK, we’ve just had a tax increases and spending cuts and there’s the world cup, so there’s no chance of any mainstream press coverage.

For a start, it would be good to see Davies, Oxburgh, Hoskins and Rees publicly challenged with the evidence of their collusion to pretend that the Royal Society had anything to do with the selection of the papers (as revealed in the Due diligence… Climate Audit thread of 10 June). That collusion, on top of the false statement in the report about the provenance of the papers, together with the irrelevance of the (carefully selected, it appears) papers, ought to be enough to demonstrate the worthlessness of the report and for most of the above to be fired (difficult in Oxburgh’s case).

Oxburgh should also explain why, if he really didn’t know who devised the list (a claim which to me dosen’t fit in with Davies’ email which says that Oxburgh was keen to be able to say that the RS had a hand in devising the list), he didn’t ask.

Richard Tol on this issue (translated with google, check bishophill comments on this topic) : “The IPCC forces IAC’s hand. The selction of the authors is the most important step. The IAC therefore has no influence on AR5 and we will have to wait untill AR6 (2021). Although I am CLA, I had no insight in the selection process. Useful or not ?”

Om another thread I pointed out that I thought Brian Hoskins was more than familar with the paleo-reconstruction record of CRU. You disagreed with me. On that other tread Steve I pointed out that Brin Hoskins as a Review Editor for AR4 was IMO more than familiar with the work that CRU had done and that unfortunately in the UK we have to put up with tha fact that Hoskins and Rees are both members of our UK Climate Change Committee. In the light of this email Steve, have you now changed your mind?

The thread was the “Due Diligence..” thread and her is the relevenat part from it.

“Also given that Brian Hoskins was a review editor on the IPCC AR4 WG1 he is also clearly shall we say ‘being economical with the truth’ when he says that he isn’t familar with the details of CRUs ‘core’ work. He was in regular contact with the ‘good Dr Phil’ and Susan Solomon the other WG1 lead authors throughout the entire AR4 production process.

Also for those who don’t already know he is also along with Rees a member of the UK’s Climate Change Committee
– snip- policy

What a joke!

Steve: I’m prepared to stipulate that Hoskins is not familiar with the paleoclimate literature.
”

I believe the words you snipped were ‘lying bastards”

“We all understand how and why this happened” – thos eare Oxburgh’s words Steve, as spoken to Hoskins.

Have you now chnage dyour mind and do you now agree with me that all of them (Hoskins and Oxburgh at the very least) are fully familiar with CRU’s ‘core’ work.

Steve: I re-iterate that I’m prepared to stipulate that Hoskins is not familiar with the paleoclimate literature. I have no idea what understanding they may have shared in respect to the comment you cite, but believe that it falls well short of being familiar with the paleoclimate literature.

There aren’t may times when I disagree with you but I most definitely disagree with you on this one.

IMO Hoskins is ‘up to his neck’ on this one. IMO he is one definitely one of the gatekeepers. How else would he get to be appointed to the UK Climate Change Committee along with Rees otherwise?

IMO the reason why they (Oxburgh and Hoskins in this case) ‘understand how and why this happened’ is because they are part of the whole system that has been put in place (by those who really run the UK) to justify (pretend to) ‘de-carbonising’ the UK economy. IMO they have no intentions of ‘de-carbonising’ the UK economy to any great extent. Rather their ‘paymasters’ intentions are to use the whole climate change issue as a means of taking complete control of the UK economy.

The battle to stop them doing this Steve is now raging and we are currently losing it because the vast majority of UK taxpayers don’t know or don’t really care about what is going on.

Snip this if you want Steve (I won’t be offended), but I’m afraid this is exactly what is going on and I think in your heart of hearts you know it but are too polite to admit it.